Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202112724)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112724

Sanctuary Housing Association

26 January 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1.     The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding:

  1. The landlord’s decision to keep a safety alert on the resident’s account.
  2. The landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account.
  3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new front door.

Background and summary of events

Tenancy agreement, policies and procedures

2.     Section 5.3 of the landlord’s tenancy management housing procedure confirms that the landlord’s decision to apply a safety alert to the resident’s account must be based on a specific incident or expression of concern by a professional, for example the police, or following an incident involving a member of staff. It should also communicate the outcome of its decision to the resident, and review each alert every six months to ensure that they are up-to-date and still relevant.

3.     Section 2 of the landlord’s income management housing procedure confirms that court costs will be added to the resident’s rent account for repayment.

4.     The tenancy agreement between the resident and the landlord confirms that the landlord is responsible for keeping front door of his property in a good state of repair.

5.     The landlord’s compensation guidance permitted it to apologise and offer compensation to its residents for reasons including its unreasonable delays, poor responses, and their time, trouble and inconvenience due to its action or inaction. It was recommended to award compensation from £50 for a high level of effort by or a high impact on its residents as a result of these factors.

Background

6.     The resident is a tenant of the landlord.

7.     There is a historic element to this complaint concerning the resident having a safety alert on his account from 2017 to 2020, which is outside of the scope of this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within six months of the matters arising. The resident began to formally complain to it about this on 5 January 2021.

8.     While some of this information has been included in the report below for contextual purposes, this report will therefore focus on events from 5 July 2020 onwards, being within six months of his stage one complaint of 5 January 2021. This includes the resident’s stage one complaint on 8 October 2020, which completed the landlord’s complaints procedure on 5 November 2020.

9.     On 16 February 2018, a county court injunction was made against the resident. This included an order for the resident not to use “insulting, foul, derogatory language of a discriminatory nature on the basis of the gender of the [landlord’s] staff in any written or oral communications with the [landlord’s] staff.”

Summary of events

10. On 8 October 2020, the landlord’s records confirmed that it spoke with the resident, who raised his stage one complaint as he was unhappy that a safety alert for at least two members of staff or contractors to visit him remained on his account. Furthermore, he felt that it had been discriminatory towards him. As the landlord was unable to provide a satisfactory verbal stage one complaint response to him on that date, the resident requested the escalation of his complaint by it to the final stage of its complaints procedure.

11. On 13 October 2020, the police emailed the landlord to express their concerns regarding the personal safety of its staff or contractors visiting the resident. They advised the landlord not to send a lone operative to the resident, and preferably to communicate with him through correspondence.

12. On 13 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that the safety alert would remain on his account, as advised by the police. It confirmed that it would review the suitability of the safety alert in six months.

13. On 21 October 2020, the landlord’s records confirmed that it had emailed the resident to request further details of the alleged discrimination against him, which he had reported to it during his above conversation with it on 8 October 2020, for it to investigate these further. Although it did not record receiving a response from him to this request.

14. On 5 November 2020, the landlord issued its first final stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:

  1. It explained that, as it had not received a response to its above email to him on 21 October 2020, it had based its investigation on the communications and records it held.
  2. It confirmed that, in line with its policy for safety alerts, it had reviewed this decision twice per year to decide whether to keep the alert on his account for at least two people to visit him. On each review, the landlord had deemed it necessary for this to remain due to the further incidents of “abusive and derogatory” remarks that the resident had made.
  3. It had found that, although it had previously reviewed the suitability of keeping the safety alert in April and September 2020, it had not communicated this to the resident. The landlord apologised for this, and offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £50 compensation, which would be paid into his rent account if he had any arrears or owed it any other money, in line with its policy.

15. On 16, 21, 23 and 24 November 2020, and additionally on 18 December 2020, the resident submitted further stage one complaints to the landlord, as he was unhappy that it had applied court costs to his rent account, which he disputed as being incorrect and said that he would not pay these. He also confirmed this during his telephone calls with it during this period, including on 23 November 2020.

16. On 24 November 2020, the landlord issued a second final stage complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that it would pay the £50 goodwill gesture payment that it had previously awarded him directly into his bank account instead of his rent account while the court costs that he disputed on the latter were being clarified, for which it would contact him separately. The landlord further confirmed that the resident’s complaint about the safety alert being applied to his account had completed its complaints procedure, and would therefore be closed.

17. On 21 December 2020, the landlord’s legal services department wrote to the resident. It confirmed that the county court injunction against him had expired, and it had considered him to have resumed using the language which the injunction had been made to prevent. If any further instances of such language were evidenced, the landlord stated that it would seek possession of the resident’s property and additionally seek its court costs. It further confirmed that, although it had been awarded its historic legal costs pending consideration of the costs by a district judge, it had removed these costs from the resident’s rent account for the time being. However, the landlord said that it would also look to pursue these costs if it sought possession of his property.

18. On 5 January 2021, the resident submitted his further stage one complaint to the landlord, which is summarised as follows:

  1. He was unhappy that it had applied the historic court costs of £2,800 it had incurred in relation to the injunction to his rent account, which he felt was “illegal”. Furthermore, he was unhappy that, although he had been awarded £50 compensation by the landlord to resolve a complaint, it would be paying this into his rent account, and would therefore be used to offset these historic court costs.
  2. He also felt that a member of its staff was responsible for the historic court costs being applied. Furthermore, the resident felt that the member of staff was “arrogant” and demonstrated a poor attitude in refusing to speak with him.
  3. To resolve his complaint, he wanted £2,800 compensation, to be rehoused, and for a written apology from the member of staff.

19. On 11 February 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to request details from him of specific examples of discrimination towards him, which it needed for it to investigate his complaint further, as it described the above complaint as referring to discrimination by its staff.

20. Following a number of telephone calls between the resident and the landlord, it called him back on 24 March 2021 when he reported that his front door was not being upgraded by it whereas those of other residents were, for which it agreed to look into this and provide him with an answer. He also referred it to its own records and the safety alert on his account for the above details of discrimination towards him that it had requested.

21. On 29 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that his neighbours’ front doors had not been replaced under its planned improvement programme, and would therefore have been assessed individually for replacement. However, it would add his property to a list to be surveyed for it to assess when an upgrade of his front door would be necessary.

22. On 17 May 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that, after a number of attempts by it to contact him, it had spoken with the resident, who explained that he would not allow entry for two people to visit his property, as he believed the safety alert to be discriminatory against him. He wanted to know the reasons that the landlord had added the security alert on his account.

23. On 18 May 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that it had spoken with the resident again, who had felt he had evidenced “systemic discrimination” by it applying court charges to his rent account, installing new front doors for his neighbours but not him, and applying a safety alert on his account with no good reason.

24. On 20 May 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that the historic court costs had been removed from his rent account following a decision to not seek recovery of these, and enclosed the associated rent statement.

25. On 20 May 2021, the landlord’s records also confirmed that it had received reports from its contractors that the resident was “abrupt and aggressive” when they had attended his property, and that their operatives were reluctant to attend the property alone.

26. On 10 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that the security alert would remain on his account for the next six months, as it had received reports of “abrupt and aggressive” behaviour from him by its employees.

27. On 17 and 23 June 2021, the landlord issued its third final stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:

  1. In respect to the resident’s concerns over the safety alert on his account, it referred to its above letter on 10 June 2021, and it confirmed that the review had been carried out in accordance with its procedure. The landlord also explained that it would be unable to change this decision within its complaints procedure, and it informed the resident of how to appeal the decision to apply the safety alert on his account via its housing management team, should he wish to do so.
  2. It had received legal advice from its counsel that there was “nothing unlawful” in it applying the historic legal costs it had been awarded to his rent account, however they could not be enforced without consideration of his ability to pay these by a district judge, as it had previously explained to him. Therefore, once the landlord had decided not to seek recovery of the costs, it had subsequently removed these costs from the resident’s rent account, and it informed him of this in its above letter on 20 May 2021. It recognised that it had caused him inconvenience and upset in applying these costs to his rent account, and so it apologised to him for this and it offered him another gesture of goodwill payment of £50.
  3. In respect to the resident’s concerns that his neighbours had had new front doors installed when he had not, it again confirmed that it had replaced no doors as part of a planned programme of work. Therefore, the landlord reiterated that it would only have replaced the doors if there was an individual need to do so. It repeated that it would include the resident’s front door in its list for a future survey to understand the condition of his front door, and whether this needed to be renewed, as well as inviting him to report any faults with the door to it in the meantime for it to inspect this. The landlord had later confirmed to this Service that this survey had been scheduled for 14 December 2021.

28. The resident nevertheless complained to this Service about the landlord’s decisions to impose a safety alert on his account for two people to attend his property, replace his neighbours’ front doors and not his, and its response to him and failures with regard to these and its administration of his rent account. In order to resolve his complaint, he requested that it apologise to him for this, withdraw the alert for two people to attend the property, keep his housing officer away from him, discipline its staff, pay him compensation and rehouse him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

29. The resident has accused members of the landlord’s staff of being discriminatory  towards him, and he has additionally raised concerns that the landlord’s decision to apply the historic legal fees to his rent account was illegal. Nevertheless, we will not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

30. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, or whether the landlord’s action to apply its historic legal costs to the resident’s rent account was illegal, since we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court or tribunal might, with these legal matters therefore being better suited to a court or tribunal to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s complaint.

31. The resident has also asked for remedies including for the landlord to discipline its staff and rehouse home in order to resolve his complaint. Nevertheless, these are outcomes that are not within this Service’s authority to provide, as we do not have the power to order or recommend remedies in relation to individual members of staff since we only have jurisdiction over landlords that are members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and not over individuals. Moreover, we do not have the authority to order or recommend rehousing as a remedy, as we do not have the power to do so in the way that landlords or local authorities might.


The landlord’s decision to keep a safety alert on the resident’s account

32. The landlord’s tenancy management housing procedure, as detailed above, allows the landlord to apply a safety alert to the resident’s account, if it had specific concerns over the safety of sending a lone operative to his property, concerns are expressed by professionals such as the police, or following an incident involving its staff. It should also communicate its decision to the resident, and review this every six months.

33. The landlord has evidenced that it had reviewed the suitability of the safety alert on the resident’s account on 13 October 2020, and that it communicated the outcome of this review to him on the same day. In view of the advice given to it by the police on that date, it acted in line with the tenancy management housing procedure, as it had received a specific expression of concern from the police, who had also advised the landlord not to send a lone operative to the resident’s property.

34. The landlord carried out another review of the safety alert on the resident’s account, and communicated the outcome of this to him, on 10 June 2021, in which it explained that it had received reports of “abrupt and aggressive” behaviour from the resident towards its contractors’ operatives on 20 May 2021, who were subsequently reluctant to attend his property alone. It had therefore further acted in line with its tenancy management housing procedure, as this was another expression of concern towards the resident’s behaviour, on this occasion from its contractors’ operatives.

35. While it is recognised that the landlord had communicated the outcome of this safety alert review to the resident eight months after the last review on 13 October 2020, instead of the six months required by its tenancy management housing procedure, it had previously awarded him £50 compensation on 5 November 2020 for its handling of such alerts. This would also have been proportionate to recognise this delay in its communication of its subsequent safety alert review’s outcome to him. This is because the further delay experienced by the resident e would additionally be recognised in line with the £50 compensation recommended by the landlord’s above compensation guidance.

36. It is therefore concerning that the landlord neither further compensated the resident for its subsequent two-month delay in communicating the outcome of its safety alert review on his account to him, nor otherwise acknowledged this failing on its part. This is particularly because the review due by 13 April 2021 preceded its contractors’ report about his behaviour on 20 May 2021, so that the outcome of the review may have been affected by events that occurred after this was due, while these events in turn could have been influenced by the fact that the review was outstanding and his dissatisfaction with this. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to further compensate the resident in recognition of this delay, and it has been recommended to review its relevant process and staff training needs.

37. The landlord nevertheless also confirmed to the resident in its final stage complaint response on 17 June 2021 that it had followed its tenancy management housing procedure in relation to the safety alert on his account, and it provided details as to how he could appeal this decision via its housing management team. This action was reasonable, as it had continued to receive specific expressions of concern about his behaviour from its contractors, for which the procedure permitted it to apply the safety alert to maintain the safety of its staff and contractors. It was additionally open to the resident to challenge this by contacting the landlord’s housing management team in accordance with its procedure, which was appropriate.

38. The landlord’s previous acknowledgement on 5 November 2020 that it had not communicated the outcomes of its review of the security alert on the resident’s account in April and September 2020, and its offer of £50 compensation for this, also accorded with this Service’s remedies guidance, as well as its own compensation guidance. The former suggests compensation from £50 where there has been failure which had an impact on the resident, but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for him.

39. In this case the landlord’s failings in not communicating the outcomes of its April and September 2020 security alert reviews would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident but did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. This is because it subsequently communicated the outcome of its reviews of the security alert on the resident’s account to him on 13 October 2020. Therefore, the above compensation offer was proportionate to recognise the detriment experienced by the resident because of its delayed communication of the outcome of its reviews of the safety alert on his account.

The landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account

40. The landlord’s income management housing procedure, as detailed above, confirms that court costs will be added to the resident’s rent account for repayment. Therefore, the landlord applied the historic court costs from its 16 February 2018 county court injunction against him to the resident’s rent account in line with the procedure.

41. However, following the resident’s stage one complaints to the landlord disputing its historic court costs on his rent account on 16, 21, 23 and 24 November and 18 December 2020, and his telephone calls to it about this during this period including on 23 November 2020, it removed the costs from the account for the time being on 21 December 2020. This was appropriate because he had disputed the costs and it explained to him on the latter date that it had been awarded these pending consideration of the costs by a district judge, and so they were not due to be paid immediately.

42. As the resident also continued to dispute the landlord’s historic court costs in his stage one complaint to it on 5 January 2021, it decided to remove the costs from his rent account, and it communicated this to him on 20 May 2021. This was a further reasonable action for it to take, as the affordability of the costs for him had still not been reviewed by a district judge, as confirmed by its final stage complaint response to him on 17 June 2021, so that it remained the case that these were not yet due to be paid.

43. Furthermore, the resident expressed concern over the payment of the £50 compensation that the landlord had offered him on 5 November 2020 into his rent account. This was because this would have been used at that time to repay the arrears from the court costs which he was disputing that were then still on the account. In response, on 24 November 2020 the landlord acted fairly in agreeing to pay compensation directly to the resident, to ensure that he received the agreed compensation, instead of this being used to reduce the arrears following the disputed historic court costs having been applied to his rent account.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new front door

44. During the landlord’s complaints procedure, the resident raised concerns with it from 24 March 2021 that his neighbours had their front doors replaced by it, yet he had not. In response, the landlord reviewed its repair records, and it confirmed to him on 29 March 2021 that his neighbours’ front doors had not been replaced as part of a planned programme by it. As no outstanding front door repairs had been reported to it by the resident, the landlord’s action to add his property to a list for a future condition survey was reasonable to determine when the door needed to be replaced by it. As this Service understands a survey had been arranged for 14 December 2021, the landlord has been recommended below to write to the resident to provide an update on his request for a new front door, if it has not done so already.

45. The landlord also acted appropriately in respect of the resident’s request for a new front door on 17 June 2021 by inviting him to report any faults with the door to it in the meantime for it to inspect this. It therefore demonstrated that it additionally complied with its above obligation from his tenancy agreement to keep his property’s front door in a good state of repair by seeking to inspect any faults with this at his request, which was suitable..


Determination (decision)

46. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its decision to keep a safety alert on the resident’s account.

47. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account. This decision is dependent on the below recommendations being followed by the landlord.

48. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a new front door.

Reasons

49. The landlord evidenced that it had considered the feedback received from both the police and its contractors’ operatives regarding keeping a safety alert on the resident’s account. It therefore determined that it was suitable for the safety alert to remain on his account in line with its procedure. The landlord also acknowledged that it did not communicate the outcomes of its reviews of the safety alert in April and September 2020, for which it offered the resident compensation which was proportionate to recognise the detriment experienced by the resident because of its delay in communicating these outcomes. However, it failed to acknowledge or to offer him such compensation for its two-month delay in communicating its subsequent review outcome to him from April to June 2021.

50. The landlord acknowledged that it had caused inconvenience to the resident in applying the historic legal costs to his rent account, and it offered him compensation which was proportionate to recognise the detriment experienced by the resident because of these costs being applied. It also agreed to remove the costs from his rent account, as they were not yet due to be paid.

51. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s neighbours’ front doors were not replaced under any planned programme of work by it. It further committed to carrying out a survey of his front door, to understand if this needed to be replaced, and it invited him to report any faults with the door to it in the meantime for these to be inspected in accordance with his tenancy agreement.


Order and recommendations

52. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 further compensation within four weeks in recognition of any distress and inconvenience that he experienced as a result of its delay in communicating the outcome of its safety alert review on his account from April to June 2021.

53. It is recommended that the landlord:

  1. Pay the resident £100 compensation, comprising of the £50 it offered in its final stage complaint response on 5 November 2020 and the £50 it offered in its final stage complaint response on 17 June 2021, if it has not done so already.
  2. Review its processes and staff training needs in respect of communicating the outcome of its safety alert reviews to its residents in accordance with its tenancy management housing procedure, in order to seek to prevent its above failings in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
  3. Contact the resident to provide an update on his request for a new front door, following its scheduled survey on 14 December 2021.

54. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order and whether it will follow the above recommendations.